Housing and Planning Committee (HPC) Meeting Transcript – 6/12/2025 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 6/12/2025 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 6/12/2025 Transcript Generated by SnapStream ================================== Please note that the following transcript is for reference purposes and does not constitute the official record of actions taken during the meeting. For the official record of actions of the meeting, please refer to the Approved Minutes. [1:02:06 PM] good afternoon everyone. I'm chito vela, council member for district four, vice chair of the committee. The chair. Our chair, Natasha harper-madison, is virtual today, so I'll be running it in person also. Council member Mike Siegel is here. I don't believe that council member Ellis will be able to join us today. But we do have a quorum with three, and I will go ahead and call the meeting of the housing and planning committee to order at 102 today, and we can start off with any speakers. Do we have anyone signed up? All right. Well, no speakers today. Then we'll go ahead and jump right into our first order of business, which is approving the minutes of the April 29th, 2025 housing and planning committee meeting. Do I have a motion from council member Siegel and a second from council member Natasha harper- madison? All those in favor, please raise your hand. Unanimous approval of the meeting minutes from April [1:03:08 PM] the meeting minutes from April 29th, 2025. And then we'll go ahead and jump into the meat of the meeting. Let me get my laptop muted here. And starting with item number two discussion. Possible action on the status and timeline of amendments to the land development code presentation by Stevie Greathouse division manager from the planning department. Miss Greathouse, the floor is yours. >> Chair and members of the housing and planning committee. And it sounds like I have a microphone, so I'm going to go ahead and get started. I'm Stevie Greathouse. I'm a division manager within the city of Austin planning department. And the backup for this item, you will find a memo that includes the June 2025 land development code amendments timeline Gantt chart. Since we last briefed the housing and planning committee in April, several items have moved forward and staff has made a few refinements to the timeline. On April 24th, city council took action to adopt a code amendment to refine the preservation bonus provisions of home. On may 22nd, city council took action to [1:04:10 PM] city council took action to adopt code amendments, establishing area plans and creating an amendment process for area plans. And also on may 22nd, city council took action to adopt updates related to the smart housing program. In addition, last week, excuse me, on June 5th, city council took action to approve a resolution initiating code amendments related to modifying existing citywide density bonus programs and creating tiered density bonuses. There are two code amendments which will be moving forward to council consideration over the next several months. The first of those is the university neighborhood overlay update, which was postponed at the June 5th city council meeting and is currently scheduled to return to council after the conclusion of the summer on September 25th. We also anticipate that there will be amendments being led by our partners of the development services department related to tree preservation and planting requirements, which could come forward to city council on the August 28th. Agenda. Looking forward into fall and beyond [1:05:14 PM] forward into fall and beyond into 2026, we anticipate a number of code related activities. Work is currently underway on a study that will provide an evaluation and recommendations related to possible new mixed use and missing middle zoning districts. We hope to be able to provide the results of that study in the fall. In the event that council chooses to initiate those code amendments based on the study, those amendments would come back in early 2026. And I think we discussed. That body of work with you all at your meeting two months ago. Also, as I mentioned in April, we are integrating work on phase two of the equitable transit oriented development overlay with amendments to our citywide density bonus programs. The June 5th resolution that was approved, related to tiered density bonuses, provides additional direction that will be incorporating into this work, and we hope to be able to bring back recommended code amendments by the end of this year, 2025. By the end of the year. We also hope to bring forward modifications to our notification requirements. Also, as I mentioned in April, we have onboarded a consultant team to help support update of the east [1:06:15 PM] help support update of the east Riverside corridor plan, and we anticipate conducting initial outreach activities in the fall with the possible work on that plan continuing into 2026, and possibly review and adoption by the end of 2026. We also expect, as I mentioned last time, that the update of the downtown density bonus would move forward in tandem with a potential update to the downtown Austin plan. And our goal is to bring back the downtown density bonus updates forward for review and adoption. Also in late 2026, this is the detailed schedule that is attached to the memo that has been included in backup. The schedule reflects an ambitious work program, and as processes move forward, staff will continue to make adjustments while working to identify specific review and adoption dates. For all of the timelines shown on the chart. One important caveat that I did want to make you all aware of today is that we will be continuing to work with the law department and our city executives to evaluate the impacts of the recent Texas legislative session on our work, and you may see adjustments to [1:07:15 PM] and you may see adjustments to this work program over the months ahead as we work to ensure that we are complying with changes in state law and that our land development code continues to deliver benefits for the residents of Austin. In the context of those changes. For more information or to provide feedback, folks can visit speak up Austin org for updates. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have. >> Thank you very much. Any questions from the chair, from the committee members? Councilmember Siegel. >> Thank you for the presentation. I just want to see if there's any information you can share about the university of Texas's concerns about about the uno program, or if we have anything else we can share at this point. >> I can just share that we are working to schedule meetings, to have conversations with the university of Texas. To my knowledge, we have not had any of those meetings yet, but we'll be scheduling them in partnership with city executives over the summer. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And the area plans that you mentioned on the that have been [1:08:17 PM] mentioned on the that have been done, that was the north Lamar south congress transit center plans. >> Correct. North Lamar south congress transit center plans, which are not code amendments but are obviously plans as part of imagine Austin, were adopted on the may 22nd agenda. But in addition, council approved an amendment to the land development code that essentially establishes that new type of plan and creates an amendment process for that new type of plan. >> Great. And the amendments to the notifications that was already in the works, because again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that there have been state changes with regard to the notification requirements. >> That is correct. We council had previously approved a resolution initiating and providing direction to staff to modify our notification requirements. And for that project, we'll really be working in tandem with our law department to kind of review the original direction from council in light of the state changes, to bring forward a proposal to council. [1:09:18 PM] council. >> And when do the state changes kick in? Again, I know it can be different times. Typically it's September 1st, so but what is the in terms of the code amendments that would affect the city of Austin? Do you know when the effective dates are for the legislation? >> I know that senate bill 840 would go into effect on September 1st. I believe that is the case on the others, but I don't want to don't quote me. >> Yeah, that would be my sense. It would be unusual for that kind of bill to take immediate effect. So. All right. With no council member harper-madison chair. >> Thank you I appreciate it. I just you did say something about emergency considerations and I was not listening as tight as I should have briefly. But did you say emergency tree protection considerations? >> No. The tree protection regulations are not emergency. I don't think I use the word emergency. I think I was just referencing that we're going to have to be nimble and ready to adjust, based on what our analysis of the impacts of the legislative session are on our work. I don't know that that counts as an emergency, but [1:10:18 PM] counts as an emergency, but definitely counts as an impact. We need to be ready to pivot to address. >> I made it up. Maybe I'm reading the future, but I appreciate that. >> Thank you. Yeah, I might have mentioned that because sometimes the state will label something an emergency so that it takes immediate effect. But like I said, I don't think they did that with any of the. I don't think. >> They either. >> Yeah. All right. Well with no further questions. Thank you very much, miss Greathouse. And we'll move on to item number. Three, briefing on the downtown Austin historic resource survey and informational report on eligibility of buildings and districts for historic designation. Kim Mcknight, division manager of the planning department. Again, the floor is yours. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. My name is Kim Mcknight. >> And I'm the division manager for historic preservation and the planning department. I'm pleased to be joined by joy harden, who's here, our zoning officer, in addition to overseeing all zoning matters [1:11:19 PM] overseeing all zoning matters and cases for the city of Austin, she also oversees three divisions in the planning department historic preservation, urban design, and, of course, zoning. I'm also pleased to be joined by my colleague Sophia Wagner, who serves as the historic resource survey coordinator. Sophia wears many hats in addition to coordinating historic resource surveys for the city, she is tasked with completing in-person inspections on more than 300 of our more than 600 historic landmarks on an annual basis, and she serves as the backup liaison for our historic landmark commission. The historic preservation office encourages the preservation of Austin's historic buildings, structures, sites, and districts, promotes awareness of our cultural and architectural heritage, and shapes a more sustainable, equitable and livable city in collaboration with other city departments and community partners. Today, we're excited to share the downtown Austin historic resources survey with you. Historic resource surveys are a foundational part of our work, but they're just one piece. Our division also [1:12:20 PM] one piece. Our division also supports historic designations and historic districts, facilitates incentive programs, and engages in preservation planning, policy development, and connecting communities with places that matter to them. Downtown Austin reflects a rich tapestry of cultural diversity and evolving urban identity. Established in the 1830s, Austin quickly grew into a political, economic and cultural hub, with its downtown core becoming a vibrant crossroads of Texan, Mexican, African American, and American influences. The diversity is visible in the area's historic buildings, ranging from early masonry government structures and Victorian era homes, to art deco commercial blocks and mid-century modern civic architecture. African American and Mexican American communities played vital roles in shaping the city's cultural and environment in ways that are often underrepresented in official histories. Conducting a comprehensive historic resources inventory of downtown Austin is essential to document and preserve and honor this multifaceted legacy. The survey [1:13:21 PM] multifaceted legacy. The survey will help ensure that future development in downtown is informed by a full understanding of the area's past, and that historically underrepresented communities receive recognition for their contributions. I'm going to turn it over to Sophia to give the bulk of the presentation, and then I will finish up at the end. >> Good afternoon. My name is Sophia Wagner. I appreciate the opportunity to be presenting to you today. So the project was led by the historic preservation office within the city of Austin's planning department. The city worked in partnership with associates, their local preservation consulting firm with extensive experience in historic resource surveys. Here's a quick overview of today's presentation. First, I'll briefly explain what historic resource surveys are and why they matter. Then I'll walk through the background of the survey, including the methods used by the consulting team. I'll highlight key [1:14:22 PM] team. I'll highlight key recommendations that came out of the survey, and then Kim is going to go over some frequently asked questions. Survey timeline and future project that the city is considering. Historic resource surveys are a foundational tool in historic preservation planning. They document buildings, structures, and objects that are at least 50 years old, focusing on both their architectural character and any historic association that they may have. As part of the process, each resource is evaluated for potential eligibility for historic designations. This can be local landmark zoning, local historic district zoning, individual national register listing, and national register historic district listing. The surveys help communities make informed decisions about preservation and planning the best practices to update them roughly every ten years, so they can reflect any changes that have been occurring in the built environment. Surveys also play a very [1:15:28 PM] Surveys also play a very important role in supporting the work of city staff. They help the historic preservation office evaluate permit requests and historic designation applications more efficiently and consistently. Since surveys are the background research that we need, they also help support property owners who are interested in pursuing historic designation by providing the baseline information about a property's history and the architecture. The survey data is integrated into the city's gis tools, which is accessible to everyone, not just city staff, but also the public. The surveys also help highlight heritage tourism opportunities and identify areas of cultural or historic significance to underrepresented communities, and this ensures a more inclusive approach to preservation. To give some background, downtown Austin was last surveyed in 1984, so it's been quite a while. In this 2024 [1:16:29 PM] been quite a while. In this 2024 survey, about 1964 resources. This includes buildings, parking garages, parking lots, outbuildings, everything out there across 1553 parcels were documented and evaluated the area. I think I'll go to the next slide. This one shows better the boundaries of the survey. We have infill road and mlk junior boulevard on the north, I-35 on the east, lady bird lake on the south, and mopac on the west. The shaded areas that you see are areas that were not included because they have been recently surveyed, or they are already local historic districts. So I'm going to talk about the process of the survey. The first step in the survey process was preparing for the field work. The team had to integrate a variety of data into a geospatial database, [1:17:30 PM] into a geospatial database, which was the base map for the work. This includes property information records from Travis county appraisal district, the city of Austin historic zoning, national register of historic places, and they also incorporated historic maps. The step two on the process was going out to the field. The team documented every single resource out there within the boundaries built before 1975 that includes main buildings and any other structures like garages, parking lots, outbuildings, and for each resource, they took at least two photographs to capture different angles and details. They also recorded that architectural character and assessed the physical condition of these buildings and also the integrity. After the field work was done, the team moved into the post survey phase, which is pulling everything together. They also added historic [1:18:30 PM] They also added historic research findings like occupancy history. This means they pull data on who lived or worked in these buildings and when. They also look for trends and themes that the buildings might like architectural, cultural history. They evaluated whether each property may qualify for historic designation, either at a local level or for the national register of historic places. And finally, they have to assess if there were any areas where a group of buildings could qualify together as a historic district. This slide gives us the big takeaways from the survey. If you look at the chart on the left, you'll see that out of all the buildings that were surveyed, which was about 1865 buildings, 932 of them are located within a potential historic district, which that's almost 50% of everything. The right side. The chart shows how those 932 [1:19:32 PM] chart shows how those 932 buildings break down 750 seats. Of that, 56 of them are considered contributing, which means that they add historic character to the area and they are eligible to become landmarked. That's about 81% of the buildings in potential districts. The rest, 174 buildings are considered noncontributing, meaning that they do not maybe have the historic significance or have changed too much over time to still qualify. But a large majority of downtown's buildings still contribute to the broader historic aspect. And here are just a few examples of properties that were found eligible for historic designation during the survey. Each of these buildings meet that criteria for either a local landmark status or listing in a historic district or in the national register. Here, there's [1:20:33 PM] national register. Here, there's a mix of architectural styles, ages, and it also includes both commercial and residential properties. These are just a sample, but they help show the range of historic resources still represented in our downtown area. This is a map of the areas where the survey team recommends new historic districts. The suggestions are based on whether there were strong groupings of historic buildings, places that still keep their original character. And Kim is going to talk a little bit more about the frequently asked questions. >> Thank you. Great job. Yeah, I want to just cover some things that I think are commonly asked when we talk about historic resource surveys. First, important to understand that the survey does not result in automatic zoning or tax changes, just makes advisory recommendations. This is simply information for the city and for [1:21:34 PM] information for the city and for the community. Will voluntary owner historic owner initiated historic designation result in zoning or tax changes, possibly designation at the local level. Adds historic or historic district to the base zoning and can unlock property tax reductions, with the caveat that alterations must follow city design standards designation at the federal level for national register district listing does not involve a zoning change, and it also makes some properties eligible for rehabilitation tax credits. In that case, we provide advisory reviews of alterations through the landmark commission. Can a building be designated against an owner's wishes? The answer is yes, but a supermajority of council is required, making it extremely rare. Since 2014, only two buildings have been designated against an owner's wishes, and this was a change from the 2019 legislative session that did [1:22:36 PM] legislative session that did require the supermajority. And, you know, it's very, very uncommon. This one in terms of our timeline, you can see that this project began in earnest in late 2023, and the final survey will be delivered to our office next week with a final briefing to the historic landmark commission at the July meeting. And then our hope is that we can update this again in about ten years in terms of future survey projects, continual and consistent historic resource surveys are really essential. They're again a foundational part of our our program. Our next project is pending funding would be to update and expand the 2016 east Austin historic resource survey. And we're working through the budget process with our city manager and department for that. The prioritization for future [1:23:39 PM] prioritization for future surveys is with areas that are under high development pressure in terms of funding opportunity, we've been fortunate that many of our surveys have been eligible for funding through the city's historic preservation fund, which is hotel occupancy tax that has been allocated for historic preservation. That may not, you know, for the most part, I think many of our surveys are eligible for that. And we have a wonderful partnership with that division. The survey can be found on our website. It's quite lengthy. There's many, many sections and components, and we stand ready for any questions you may have. >> Thank you very much. Committee members. Any questions? Councilmember Siegel. >> Thank you. Thank you councilmember. Thanks for this great presentation. Congrats on your first presentation. I think you said it was. I just had a couple quick questions. One, I guess we have this case that did not succeed about, you know, [1:24:39 PM] not succeed about, you know, historic native American antiquities. And I'm wondering like, is that part of our study process, I guess downtown, anything that might have been here has been been removed or ruined. But in terms of the methodology or approach, like, are we looking for native American resources as part of our our strategy? If you can comment on that, just educate me a little bit. That'd be great. >> Be happy to. Archeology is one of the criteria that could make a property eligible for designation. It's tricky because we don't yet have really an archeology program or a city archeologist. It is a major priority, and our equity based preservation plan to expand the archeological program. And we're in, again, discussions about the priority and funding and how that might take place. There is a, you know, the state maintains classified records of where archeological sites exist, and those are really only available to professional archeologists. [1:25:41 PM] to professional archeologists. Although, you know, we are able to I am able to access that because there's no one else in the city that has access to that. It isn't something that I can actually interpret, though, because I'm not an archeologist. For all these reasons. An archeological program is really essential. You know, it's if you were to see that survey, you might be shocked at the degree of archeological sites that are throughout our city. The Texas archeological research laboratory, which is part of UT Austin, has incredible collections of resources that have been pulled, including this building. There's an incredible collection of some of the resources that came from this site when it was developed to city hall, because this was a red light district, and there were a lot of really interesting things. And I think that, you know, for a lot of people, they would be surprised to learn that archeology may be one of the only ways we can learn about people who came before us, not just prehistoric, but historic communities. Surveys are required for a lot of federal [1:26:43 PM] required for a lot of federal projects, but it's not uncommon for cities like San Antonio to have more robust requirements so that they can take advantage of opportunities to better understand the people and the communities that came before us. So it is our hope that we can continue to have that conversation about elevating the role of archeology in our city. So thank you for the question. >> Sure. And maybe having an archeologist on staff at some point, budget permitting, of course. And then you actually kind of alluded to my second question, which is basically asking how the equity based preservation plan kind of intersects with this work. You know, I think on one of the slides, I guess ten was kind of, you know, next steps after the survey. And I know the preservation plan has a lot of proposed actions. And so if you could just comment a little bit on how these two efforts go together. >> Absolutely. We're really pleased that it was not planned, but we had a memo that went to council last week or maybe the week before. That was an update on our implementation plan for [1:27:43 PM] on our implementation plan for the equity based preservation plan. And in your mailboxes on the second floor is a copy of the plan as well as the memo. The elevating of archeological resources and sort of historic resources and surveys in general are both very high priorities for our preservation plan. You'll see in that memo that we've listed, you know, the fiscal year 26 priorities and what we've been able to elevate with the resources that we currently have. You know, we're doing our best. We have to develop work plans with a lot of our partner departments. So you'll see in our memo that we have forged partnerships with, I want to say, 14 or 15 city departments and have in the process of developing detailed work plans that document our work. And I think that our our planner who's working on that care patron, in my view, is breaking ground in terms of how we can implement a plan across many city departments, because a lot of the goals in the plan [1:28:44 PM] lot of the goals in the plan relate to other goals like sustainability, equity office, Austin public library at the history center. These are all departments that play a critical role in our success. And we have a lot of, you know, goals that are aligned. And you'll see that we have a public dashboard that we've also just launched, which is noted in in the memo, which I think is going to hold ourselves accountable for our progress and shows where we have made, you know, strides. So I think planning is super fun. Implementing is super hard. And I think we're doing some great work to chart a path. And whether we get the resources, you know, remains to be seen in such a difficult budget year. But we've been really pleased at the responsiveness of our city management and our department, who really take seriously the needs of the of the program and are working very hard to get the resources that we've asked for. >> Great. Thanks for that update. Appreciate it. >> I've got a couple of questions that sorry, let me [1:29:45 PM] questions that sorry, let me actually turn to the chair. Harper-madison. First, I see your hand up. >> I appreciate you. Thank you very much. A couple things I just wanted to acknowledge that a few of us were born in 1975. So if we're calling 1975 historic, I got questions. That's all I'm gonna say. We'll leave that there, because I do. Sometimes I go to actually historic cities and I wonder, you know, like a city that actually has something that's 200, 300, 500 years old. And then I come here and I realize some of the things that we refer to as historic are my age. I have a hard time taking it seriously, but I think that's because I'm hesitant to age. So what I wanted to say was, I really appreciate that y'all acknowledge how old the, you know, the last information you had, did you say 1989 or 1985, the last survey. >> 1984. >> 1984? And so something I also thought about in recognizing that was, you know, that's about the same age as our land development code. And so I just wonder how much adjacency there is when we're compiling some of [1:30:46 PM] is when we're compiling some of this information, especially because I know y'all have to really do a lot of outreach when you're doing these kinds of surveys. Some of the data is what you're getting from keeping your finger to the pulse of the ground and the community. I just wonder if you ever find yourself in a position where you're finding any relevant, you know, sort of adjacent, applicable stuff that, you know, speaks to both our really ancient but directly reflective of how we use stuff in our city, plans and surveys and things. Just out of curiosity, that's neither here nor there. I'm just curious if you ever feel like that comes up as a part of this discussion. >> I want to make sure I understand your question. So are you asking. >> When you guys are doing your outreach right and you're doing surveys and you're speaking to members of the community, and you're going to neighborhood associations and you're doing all this sort of outreach. I know that the consideration around what assets in the community are going to be deemed historic, and what assets in the community mean to people. I can't help but wonder how often those conversations inspire just [1:31:47 PM] those conversations inspire just general discussions about land use in general. >> I think that's a great question. You know, this process does involve a lot of field work. And when our consultant team is out in the field, it's more common in residential areas for them to get questions from community members because you're standing in the right of way, taking photos of their house, and you kind of want to know, why are you doing that? But in downtown, we were told that there was actually very few questions. But I do think people are interested to learn that, you know, there is an actual survey of resources. And I think what maybe our presentation doesn't convey is the historic contexts that are part of this survey. The one for east Austin, I think, is like a novel of how the how east Austin developed the one for downtown Austin is similar. It's a really interesting account of the different levels of development and why these individual buildings are important, and how they connect to different aspects of our history. To speak to your comment about recent history, I'm also in the 1975 [1:32:47 PM] history, I'm also in the 1975 club, so I do know how you feel. But I will say this, I think if you can think about, you know, what's fashionable at the time and how hard it can be to appreciate things. So maybe in the 1930s art, you know, that was sort of the era of new art deco architecture, and Victorian architecture was seen as very stuffy and old and, you know, not desirable. And, and, and we lost a lot of things during that time because it wasn't as though Victorian architecture was fashionable. And the same is true with art deco as art deco, kind of, you know, became something of the past. And we had mid-century modern people want to upgrade, and they want the newest and latest and greatest, and sometimes we're not really the best judge of our recent past, because we do have a harder time appreciating it than what you know, than something that was much, much older. And so I do struggle. There are some architecture styles that aren't my favorite, but if they are emblematic of a special architectural style and architect, we have a lot of criteria that help us evaluate as objectively as possible [1:33:48 PM] as objectively as possible whether something has historic value, architectural value, archeological value, community value. So there's a number of area that we use. And we also look at the integrity in terms of the changes over time. And I will say that the historic preservation historic preservation field is evolving to better reflect kind of, I would say, the working class that necessarily kind of fix buildings up over time, adapt buildings for new uses. And I'm pleased that, you know, I think our city is part of that new wave of preservation that's trying to better understand the working class and preserve their story to. >> Thank you. I really appreciate that. And if I alluded to any gaps in the presentation, let's be clear, I the reason I asked that question about the overlap is because I've seen firsthand anecdotally how hard you work to really collect good data. You can't fight the data. Right. And I really appreciate the work of our municipal historic preservation folks. I really [1:34:49 PM] preservation folks. I really think y'all put in the work. And for what it's worth, I haven't been any stranger. I have big feelings about historic preservation in general, and it's nuanced like anybody else's lived experience and perspective. How I grew up, who I am, where my people came from, you know, having to have the conversation around historic preservation adjacent to wanting us to remove confederate, you know, commemoration, like my historic preservation discussion as a person. It has layers. It's complex. But I really appreciate that. I feel like the folks who do this for the city of Austin put in the right work to get the good data, to make sure we're making good decisions. The only other thing I would ask is, so I heard somebody say, it's very rare, but I just wanted to speak to we had a constituent very recently, and after watching their situation with historic preservation and what kind of turmoil it put her family through when they were involuntarily designated, well, I can appreciate that. It's a [1:35:50 PM] I can appreciate that. It's a rarity. The outcomes are so damaging. I'm just curious about as we keep going through this process. I mean, I know it seems hyper sensitive, but because, I mean, I got to see how it affected a whole family, I'm really curious to know what safeguards we can put into place to make certain it never happens involuntarily. >> Well, I think that the answer really lies in policymakers. I mean, the decision to designate is in the hands of our council. We simply make recommendations. The landmark commission makes recommendations. The planning commission makes recommendations. Right. By the time it comes to council, it's been thoroughly vetted, thoroughly researched. Multiple advisory bodies have looked at it. And it's really your call as to whether you think that this is something that needs to be preserved. The bar is extremely high. Property rights in Texas, as you know, are taken very, very seriously. And the legislature has, you know, has made it very, very hard, not just for individual landmarks, [1:36:51 PM] just for individual landmarks, but for historic districts. We have very few local historic districts in our city. People would be surprised that congress avenue or east sixth street, none of these are districts that are protected. You may have landmarks there, but they simply are not. So, you know, again, it's a policy decision. I think. >> I really appreciate that emphasis. I may or may not even be directly relevant to this particular presentation, but I'm going to have Sharon and our office reach out to you all. In case you're not familiar with which case I'm talking about, you really have to go and check it out and watch how it went down from beginning to end. It's kind of unbelievable, and I just don't want us to be responsible for that ever again. So you'll see what I'm talking about when you see the case, if you haven't seen it already. Thank you all for your presentation. It's been great. Appreciate it. >> Thank you chair. And to follow up on on that, because honestly I'm more familiar with some of these historical cases in my hometown of Laredo. And I saw the imposition of a [1:37:55 PM] saw the imposition of a historical designation. And similar to what the chair harper-madison said, it was devastating for the family that owned that property. They were in a situation where they couldn't really rent it. They couldn't. They didn't have the money to remodel it. And ultimately, in both of the cases that I'm thinking of that I'm familiar with, the property ended up coming down because it just, you know, was in such poor condition that it was not salvageable. Do we know what happened to those two cases where there was an imposition of a historical designation over the property owner's wishes? >> Well, one of the cases is a house that is at 41st and red river. It is the starts with an Mok. It's now the home of preservation Austin. It'll come to me in a second. It's the Mcfarland Mcbee house. Sorry. It's a beautiful art deco house. [1:38:57 PM] It's a beautiful art deco house. There was an outcry right across from Hancock golf course. It's really incredible sort of example of that architectural style when it was threatened with demolition, the community rallied to save it and council voted to support designation against the owner's wishes. It's a pretty great story. Ultimately, preservation Austin, a local nonprofit for historic preservation, was able to purchase the property and did a lot of fundraising. And now it's their headquarters, and it serves as a great example of what can happen. You know, I can't you know, I will say that there are a lot of really great outcomes with historic designation that allow for people to better maintain their properties. They're able to take advantage of tax incentives. They're able to take advantage of abatement programs. And we have made enormous strides in recognizing the history of parts of town that haven't been recognized. You know, again, I think at the end of the day, it's a policy decision. You know, we've we've been tasked with making recommendations for properties that have value, that [1:39:57 PM] properties that have value, that are seen as extremely important. And I think council, you know, gets to gets the opportunity to weigh in. >> Well I appreciate that. And a similar going back to the 50 year old question because large parts of district four I feel pretty comfortable saying maybe most of district four, most of the structures in district four are more than 50 years old. I would say definitely. The homes in district four are more than 50 years old. I mean, my home is just I think every home in my neighborhood is virtually what how does that cut? I mean, in terms of, you know, because and the tension with, you know, the chair harper- madison mentioned, you know, being in in a real historic city. Again, I remember being in istanbul and being at the hagia Sophia, you know, which is 1500 years old when parts of that city, most of that city is like well over a thousand years old. What happens as our city ages and as [1:40:58 PM] as our city ages and as virtually every building in especially the central part of the city, is, I guess, prima face eligible for historic designation. >> It's a pretty high bar. I mean, we review every demolition permit for every building over 45 years of age. We have a pretty short review window, which we're working to expand because we would if we had a little more time to research, we'd actually put less to review on the landmark commission agenda, where that's one of the code amendments you'll be seeing in the next couple of years. We have to put too much because we need the time to research. If there's a if there if there's a property presented for demolition that has the potential to meet our criteria, which is extremely high, then it's placed on the agenda. Sofia is an excellent researcher. She goes to the history center, she researches occupancy history. She looks at our historic resource surveys. And with that information, a staff report is developed. By the time it makes it on the landmark commission, [1:41:58 PM] it on the landmark commission, it's gone through. You know, one level of review for something to be recommended, you know, for historic zoning. I mean, the landmark commission has two options approve the demolition permit or initiate historic zoning. There's really only two options. And so from there, you know, there's the process I think is it's pretty thorough. It goes to the planning commission and goes to city council. The cases that do reach you have gone through a lot of process, and there are literally hundreds upon hundreds. I think we approved over a thousand demolition permits. I can't remember the exact number, but, you know, you have to for something to be initiated, it has to meet two of our five criteria. So architectural significance alone is not enough. It has to meet the other criteria. So it's a pretty high bar. >> No I appreciate that. And I, I always enjoy the backup on the historical preservation cases. It's extremely well researched. [1:42:59 PM] It's extremely well researched. I know you all pull all kinds of information, and I think do a really good job of telling the story of the property in the backup information. >> And I think the process is part of the point. So if you can think of, you know, just because something doesn't become designated, all is not lost. We have incredible staff report that all that information is captured for posterity. We require a documentation package. So photographs of that building. So I think that, you know, it's a misnomer to think that, you know, just because we do see a lot of demolitions, that that is somehow a failure. It's not it's really the process is important. I mean, it would be devastating to learn that a property that had extreme significance had been demolished without understanding that significance. And so at least you have full information. I think it's best to think of historic preservation as a planning tool that you have to weigh, along with many other things, whether it's sustainability, affordability. So it's just one of the many tools that you have in your toolbox, and one of the [1:43:59 PM] in your toolbox, and one of the many lenses that you have in which to view cases. And so I think that's the way you should view it. >> And I completely agree that regardless of what happens to the property, the documentation of the process is historical preservation. So no, I really appreciate those those those packets and the information. All right. Well thank you very much. Appreciate the presentation. And we'll go ahead and move on to item number four. Briefing on staff implementation of the infill development ordinance, including process changes and drainage criteria, manual updates with Matt Holland from watershed protection and brant Lloyd from the development services department. Mr. Lloyd, welcome. [1:45:12 PM] Mr. Lloyd, welcome. >> Welcome. Brant Lloyd, dsd development officer. Appreciate the committee's time. Today. We're here to talk about a topic that goes goes back many years and is reaching its implementation phase. So we're excited to report back on where we're at with implementation. We've affectionately calling this the infill development ordinance site plan. Infill plot is quite a mouthful. And today we're going to talk about just give you an overview of the ordinance and what it did and the progress that has been made in implementation. We're going to highlight some of the changes that we're making to the application. Submittals that are intended to make the process, both for multi-family site plan lite projects and for subdividing into smaller lots to make that process much easier, we're going to summarize progress that's being made on some of the action that council called for in its motions that [1:46:14 PM] called for in its motions that were passed concurrent with the ordinance, and hopefully we'll have some time for questions and answers as well. So just high level overview, city zoning regulations have evolved over time to provide for more opportunities for housing within established residential areas. But the zoning regulations, things like transportation, drainage, other regulations are not calibrated to the scale and intensity of infill projects. They're much more geared towards your big classic subdivision, Greenfield subdivision. So the infill ordinance and related administrative efforts on the city's part are aimed at better calibrating regulations and review procedures to the scale and intensity of infill projects. The ordinance that you all passed focused principally on drainage regulations. A lot of the regulations that are most [1:47:15 PM] of the regulations that are most impactful for infill are are not directly in the code. They live more at the level of criteria, manuals and administrative process, but drainage is in the code. There's real fundamental provisions on drainage that are in the land development code. So your ordinance sought to rightsize the regulations and drainage can account for 40% or more of costs associated with infill. So it's a really important improvement. And basically it addressed residential subdivisions of existing platted lots in single family Zones. And it caps it at an acre. But if you're less than 17,780ft S, then no review is required at all. If you're above that, but no more than an acre, we have a limited grading plan that is required that we're working to implement, and then small scale multifamily projects of 5 to 16 units on a lot. Site [1:48:17 PM] of 5 to 16 units on a lot. Site plan lite is subject to very similar drainage, modified drainage provisions as well. The ordinance will take effect next week on June 16th, and we will be ready to implement the core provisions of that ordinance. Some of the further policy direction, the things that you all have asked us to look, look into, more work remains to be done, and we will be providing a report on July 1st highlighting our progress. But we've made a lot of progress so far, and we expect to make considerably more in the coming weeks. And with that, here's here's a big old Greenfield subdivision, and I'm going to turn it over at this point to Matt Holland from the watershed protection department. >> Excellent. Thank you. Brant. Yes. Matt Holland, watershed protection, thanks for the opportunity to talk about this. Really glad to be here. So [1:49:18 PM] Really glad to be here. So here's your here's your classic large scale subdivision. We've seen it through the years. This is what our regulations are really geared towards. But when you come in let's see if I got this is working. Try this. But when you when you have a much smaller site that doesn't need to have look the roads are already there, the water and wastewater is already there. Things are set up. You just need to subdivide it. Our rules really. The full rulebook kicked in before this ordinance was put into place, but council basically said, look, you can streamline this. The drainage doesn't have to be the same high key level. So home one and home two real quick overview. Home one is offering an opportunity to build in some areas where there is only one home allowed, one unit allowed. You could build either two or up to three units in each one of those. Pretty straightforward. But when you just wanted to take that same thing and subdivide it, then again, whole rule book that you saw for that huge subdivision would kick in. So [1:50:18 PM] subdivision would kick in. So we're trying to figure out a better path for about a over well over 100,000 lots in this configuration, we're offering basically no drainage requirements at all, other than the things you would have to do for your single family home, which would be right next door at the same scale, same everything site, plan, light, multifamily, missing, middle, whatever you want to call it. There's about upwards of 8000 of these zoned lots around town. And so again, like Brett mentioned, we have a very similar setup. Here's an example of a ten unit multifamily on half an acre. So there's been a lot of so the impact of the ordinance was to significantly reduce the complexity of or eliminate drainage requirements. And also we did want to retain the guardrails that we've historically had for larger projects on these at a certain scale. And the council set that at 17,780ft S, as brant mentioned earlier. And so as that was [1:51:20 PM] earlier. And so as that was wrapping up on may 6th, council offered a couple of motions asking staff to come back and work with the with the stakeholders on a couple of things. And so we're here on July 12th to talk about drainage criteria and processes. And so you guys identified six items. I'm going to go through each one of those briefly. And then like brant mentioned, we'll come back also with a second motion that you guys wanted to ask about some specific things for fee in lieu. Here are the here are the topics that were covered. There was a staff report attached to the March 6th work and in the in the fine print of the staff report was a bunch of things that staff had collected from the development and design communities, ideas that they had to make this to improve this further on the drainage side. Plus, I'll go ahead and talk a little bit about the site drainage and grading plans we actually had on on June 2nd. Folks out there in TV land that want to get even more detail than we're going to give right [1:52:21 PM] than we're going to give right now. We actually we had an online forum where over 100 folks showed up and were interested in implementation of this ordinance. They wanted to see what how it worked. So we go into much more detail there. And so go to that. We can give information on how to get to that online if you're more interested. Because a lot of folks were asking, hey, this is going to be implemented soon. How does this site drainage and grading plan stuff work? Well, we had you know, we were able to offer some answers to those questions. So we asked about flood detention. Storm drain connections is a huge one. That was the probably the biggest cost driver item on here. So we spent a lot of time working on that with, with, with stakeholders and also with the technical advisory review panel, the tarp modified rational method. We'll get I'll get into all these very briefly, but there up there modular detention, reliance on engineered Cecile plans and deferral of drainage elements from subdivision to building permit. Same slide as earlier here. The home one project and [1:53:22 PM] here. The home one project and the home two project. Essentially, if you are a resubdivision under 17,780, you're not going to have any further drainage requirements other than what you already have for a single family home building permit project. So no detention, no grading, no specific grading requirements or review, and no storm drain connection. So very straightforward. Again, over 100,000 lots subject to that change. This is a much smaller group of projects here, but large enough. And again set by council 17 780ft S. And we can talk about that in q&a. If you want to talk about why that number came up. But it's a good number and it's about 0.41 acres of size. So somebody wants to split this into smaller lots. They can and but but they would have to follow a few additional drainage rules to those guardrails I mentioned earlier. So about 3500 of these lots that are bigger than 17, 780 and up to one acre. So there's three [1:54:24 PM] to one acre. So there's three scenarios. One of them is the happy scenario where the water just runs right off your property, naturally, right into the public right of way, or maybe to a creek behind behind the behind the property. Good stuff. We like it. That's where the water is supposed to go. That's where it's more easily managed. And so if you're in that that spot, I won't read all these things, but the basically you you will have a much simplified grading. Grading. There's no grading. Sorry. Much, much, much, much simpler process to get to your permit. If you're in the second scenario, you will have maybe you have drainage that drains off schleps off into your neighbor's property. Not not ideal, but in many cases you would be able to regrade that that that flow and bring in your bobcat and create a little swale, what have you, something. But you're going to need some expertise to make sure that that goes right for these larger projects. And so initially our, our setup was to pay into our regional stormwater management [1:55:25 PM] regional stormwater management program, get our watershed staff to look at it. But we actually, during the process of working with stakeholders, have eliminated that. There is no more payment. That was about a $30,000 on average reduction. And now the grading review is straightforward and will be reviewed by the development services department. Staff and the stakeholders were asking for this option to defer the grading and also to the building permit phase. And we'll talk a little bit more about that in a second. The third scenario is the least helpful for the applicant, and that's where the drainage kind of just goes straight back or sideways into a neighbor and really don't have a choice to regrade it and get it to the right of way or drainage system. So not not ideal. But we do have technology to help handle this and reduce impacts to lot to lot flooding for neighbors. And so you'd build a small scale detention pond again, not ideal, but at this scale, just just having that water run into [1:56:25 PM] having that water run into neighbors is not is even less ideal. So you, as today, are still going to be asked to do a number of things. And again, this is a small subset of a small subset at this point for these projects. And the development community stakeholders were asking for additional options. And those were the ones that were some of the ones that were put into that staff report to the city. So I'll mention those here in turn. All right. And then site plan light, as brant mentioned, has a really similar process. It's going to be there is but there is no 17 780 small scale version where you don't do any. You would have to look at the grading and drainage and topography of each of these projects. They're a little more intense. They have more the higher impervious cover limits instead of 45% max, they would be 55, 60, or 65% maximum. So we want that's that's going to concentrate some runoff. And we want to see that get looked at by design expertise during the design phase. Okay. Very briefly [1:57:25 PM] design phase. Okay. Very briefly there's when you're trying to figure out how big is my detention pond. If I have to build one. There are a number of options in the drainage criteria manual. One of them we eliminated some years ago was called the modified rational method. A number of stakeholders said, hey look, that was that was really great. At this scale, there's a lot simpler. Could we have that back please? And so we said basically, yes, we will put it back in the drainage criteria manual for these projects up to one acre that qualify for the residential infill thing. Fun slide. This just talks about some different lot scales. Councilmember Siegel, you'll be happy to know this is right in the middle of your district, but it's just representative across town. So in this case, these lots are pretty deep. Actually, a lot of lots around town are like one 110 120. These are 150. Just run through. This is the old minimum lot size of 5750. And it's still relevant because you have to have a lot at least this big to use home to and [1:58:27 PM] this big to use home to and divide into three pieces or two or what have you. So that just shows you kind of in this neighborhood there are lots a little bit bigger. And in fact a lot of the lots are in this 9100 level, which is the approximate average lot scale for home one and two eligible parcels around town, 150 something thousand parcels, and the median size is 191,090 100. This is just just twice 5750. And you can see that there's lots in this neighborhood happen to be around that size, or some of them do. A few of them are almost as big as that 17 780. And so we do see some lots like that now. So these folks would be able to use take advantage of the new infill ordinance and be able to divide and not they wouldn't have to specifically specifically address drainage through the traditional path. In a second. I'll go into detail on this half acre size because it's relevant to infill. I mean the site plan light, and then this is the biggest project you would have. It's one acre in size. You would need to manage the drainage. We don't we think that's too big to [1:59:27 PM] don't we think that's too big to not have to manage drainage. And so we would want you to send that water to the right of way in some form or provide small detention. There in the very top left corner is an 1800 square foot lot. Just for an example of the very minimum lot size per home two. All right. So I'm going to paint some sort of hypothetical buildings on top of this for the new units that might be put in here. And then I'm going to pretend that this site, this middle one is site plan lite. And it just has exactly a half an acre. So because we're going to talk about the storm drain connections, that's an expensive thing, probably at least $1,000 per foot of pipe that you'd have to build if you were going to have to connect. And so our current regulations in our drainage criteria manual say, well, if you're going to subdivide or you're going to have a site plan you need to have and you don't, and most projects are near a storm drain and they can just connect relatively nearby. But many areas of town or some areas of town do not have such connections readily available. [2:00:28 PM] connections readily available. And right now we say, hey, why don't you go ahead and connect all the way up to 550ft away? That's pretty expensive. That could be a half $1 million for one of these really small projects. That's overwhelming and would would probably eliminate that possibility of that project. And it does not seem proportionate to most folks. So we have decided that is needs needs some change. Again I'm going to pretend that's. Yeah. So these smaller projects you subdivide them. No connection required. No connection required for this one at the 1780. And in fact, we're not going to require a connection for the, for the this, this, this subdivision here. It would, it would have some other requirements potentially. But we're not going to ask that it connect. It's going to look a lot like the neighborhood neighboring individual single family properties in terms of drainage coming off driveways and so forth and so on. The site plan one if you're if you're under half an acre, we're going to also say no connection because it's relatively small scale. We're going to allow you to, you [2:01:29 PM] We're going to allow you to, you know, to not not necessarily have to connect. And then but if you're above one half an acre all the way up to one, we would like you to connect up to 50ft away. Essentially, that means if there's a storm drain in front of your property, we want you to connect to it. That's straightforward. We'd like to see that, but we're not asking you to build a very expensive connection hundreds and hundreds of feet away. So that was a big concern. That was a big discussion within the tarp and with our stakeholders. Don't panic. I'm almost done. Let's see. So modular detention really interesting topic. So instead of I remember that I should have put the other another the other slide that showed the it showed the here's the, here's the water drain of the neighbors and showed a little bitty detention pond in the very corner. Well, there could be a scenario where instead of building a single detention pond, you would actually build, in this case, six rain tanks or six. It's not [2:02:29 PM] six rain tanks or six. It's not technically a rain garden, but rain garden looking detention pond in each of the individual lots that would allow the folks subdividing to go ahead and sell off the lots. Then the folks that are going to build with a building permit would then need to build that drainage structure when they built their project, and that would manage the water. It's pretty complicated. There's a lot of details we haven't worked out. I won't go through all those bullets, but you can see that we're still working through a number of items that would need to be figured out if that's going to work, work well. All right. This is really a summary slide. I want to read all these things off. It has the estimated time frame. The first one I wanted to correct a little bit. It just has an update. We worked with the tarp and a tarp working group just yesterday actually. We made good progress on that. That's the storm drain connection one. That one's almost ready for action and we should by the end of this month, late June, be able to get that up up, up and posted. We'll probably get some additional comments on it. And probably [2:03:30 PM] comments on it. And probably it'll probably be at least late July and likely early September that that one will be adopted. But anyway, that one's underway. Rolling through the process. The next couple we're working on as we speak, and staff should be able to get that to the technical advisory review panel, tarp folks here shortly. In the next cycle, we hope for flood detention alternatives. It's just really kind of updating things, offering the modified rational method, hoping to post that in the summer and adopt it in the fall. And then these other last three are going to take a little bit more time. As I mentioned, figuring out modular detention and the implementation of that, and then figuring out which which components might be, we might be able to rely on engineered steel instead of staff review, and then also how the process will work to defer drainage improvements to the building permit process. And with that, I am through with the presentation. I'm happy to happy to answer any questions. We got [2:04:31 PM] to answer any questions. We got a couple other folks here in addition to help out. Wow. Oh, impressive. >> And thank you all both. I know that that that y'all were working real hard. I mean, not just with my multiple offices trying to trying to get this right. And that's a that's a great update and report. Tim bray is unfortunately not here. He's on vacation and not but I'm gonna I'm going to tell him to make sure and watch this chair. Harper-madison did you have a question? >> Well, I appreciate you already making the sound. I don't have to do it. That didn't age well for a couple politicians in the past, but I'm I'm that excited. And I think there's some folks that have worked with me recently and worked with me in the distant past when we started talking about site plan like six years ago. So I think there's a lot of excited folks. There's really not even a question so much as one. I really appreciate all the work and time and effort, and this is one where I feel inspired about us recognizing, I think it was maybe 23 where we [2:05:31 PM] think it was maybe 23 where we asked for a review essentially to tell us what barriers are being presented to our housing supply challenges just based on our systems. And, you know, having staff go through and really make those recognitions around the things that could be adjusted, I just I really appreciate seeing this. There was the one question that I did have, and it's a it's sort of adjacent to the last presentation we had. So one of the things that I think I've heard pretty consistently over the years is that there's not enough people to do the reviews. There's not enough people to do the thing. Yes, it takes 18 months to get your site plan or the, you know, these things, but a lot of it had to do with staff capacity. I'm curious to know, do you anticipate that the sealed engineer component will shift that capacity issue? And if so, what's next? Like what are we going to tackle next now that we have all this extra [2:06:31 PM] that we have all this extra time? >> Do you want to take that one. >> We're not requiring engineering for the green army. No. >> But I think that yeah well we're definitely still working out the on the on the engineer seal piece. But that's you know it's exciting. And this is it's been an exciting project. It's been very complicated. But we're hopeful that we can work through a lot of these details and get and get a lot done. >> Yeah. And we're definitely the trend is towards requiring less engineering, not more. So that's I think, part of the overall mission of this project. And we're committed to doing everything we can to meet the 90 day target for the site plan light projects that was stated in the ordinance. But as far as staff having a lot of extra time on their hands, I can't speak to that. I have my doubts whether that is indeed the case, but we will check in and let you know if that's if that happens. And we definitely want to streamline [2:07:33 PM] we definitely want to streamline it and improve, streamline the process and improve everybody's quality of life on the city side as well as the applicant side. So we appreciate that. Appreciate your question. >> I appreciate that, and for what it's worth, I'll leave you with this. You know, watching folks who were trying to build affordable housing get blocked by us, it was tricky to watch. And so I really appreciate that you acknowledge that making it easier for the applicants doesn't somehow automatically mean the city is operating in deference to developers, people who build things, or even small infill builders who we need the product that they're building. And in order for them to do so, our processes have to work for them. So I really appreciate that they also will be the recipients. That way the whole ecosystem benefits. It's just it's good news all around. And I was joking about extra time. >> Thank you chair. And on the and again I'm getting way out of my field here. But from the conversations that I've had with [2:08:33 PM] conversations that I've had with folks, especially about the calculations on the drainage stuff, they were telling me that the calculations were almost as expensive as the infrastructure. You know, that that actually getting to that number was just a very complex and intense process that people were paying like $50,000 or, you know, again, I'm pulling numbers out of the air. But so that's what that modified rational method is, is supposed to address. >> That's that's right. Yeah. And so we did, you know, some of our stakeholders work in other cities. And we're able to show some other examples that were really simplified. And so we're definitely heading toward that path with make that an option for these smaller projects. >> And I hesitate to ask this question, but for a non-engineer, could you just briefly describe the difference between kind of what we were asking folks before and what the modified plan will will allow? >> Well, ironically, I'm not an engineer either. I'm an [2:09:36 PM] engineer either. I'm an environmental planner, but I work with engineers and try to channel them. So I can I can get George to come and talk about this. We need to. But the I think the elevator speech would be there are a number of packages that that are actually many of them are free to use like HEC, hms that you could use to do the modeling, but you could also use pond park, which apparently does require a subscription each time each year. And so there was a lot of discussion with stakeholders about how expensive that was. And they pointed to the modified rational method, which was not quite punch. Punch in five numbers and kick out something in a spreadsheet. But getting close to that was very, very simplified spreadsheet ish. You know, it's you have to iterate a little bit, but you get there and it's simple. And most engineers are very comfortable and familiar with it. So we think it gives. And we actually one of our engineers did an analysis and showed that the results from those at this [2:10:37 PM] results from those at this scale, looking at these almost identical, hey, let's why not give the simplified version for that and not make it hard and have have somebody have a subscription. So we're we're very much on board and we'll be putting that offering that to the drainage criteria manual. >> Well great. I'm happy to hear and again my, my lay person's understanding that, you know, you really had a calculated almost down to the drop, you know, of the and that was very difficult and very expensive. Whereas like, you know, again, an estimate that's 97%, you know, accurate is fine that that's and much, much cheaper, much quicker, much easier. So I'm really happy to hear about that. The storm drain connection question on that. So when there's not a storm drain connection to tap into, then it just goes into the street. Or how does that work. >> Yeah, it's you know, these are actually brant does a great job when we're doing these larger conversations. These are rules and regulations that almost never been touched for years and years or decades. And so it's very unusual that we have these conversations at this [2:11:39 PM] have these conversations at this technical detail. These are complicated things. We don't want too much water rushing into the street, causing problems, causing hydroplaning for vehicles, causing problems with with flow across sidewalks, which has all sorts of issues. And so we have there's multiple things going on here. How much water is coming off your site within your site and where is it going? Do you need detention or not? That's like step one. Well then you need to get it to the right of way. Well, what if there's too much water and it's jetting out in there? That's too much. Do you need to break it up into smaller pieces? Do you need to connect? So those things are all going on and we're trying to simplify that. We actually, you know, back to the modified rational method and so forth. If we can avoid having the pond altogether then there's not even any calculations. And so a lot of these projects would have had to have had a pond in the past. Now they won't with this new process. So that's, that was a that was a big thing. And so you would you would continue. You still have to you still have to make sure that you're not putting too much water into one place. May have to break it up, may have to use a flow spreader [2:12:39 PM] may have to use a flow spreader or something else to get that flow, to not be just concentrated so, so fiercely in one spot. So there, there, there will still be a number of points where you have to look at it again, 17, seven, 80 and below. Natasha you're not going to look at any of that stuff. So because that scale, we're not worried about the intensity and the flow at that point. And but the bigger projects, which are a small subset but provide could provide a lot of housing. We still care a lot. We want that process to go well. That's where you you would look at a variety of things, including your connection. And you may not. So you may not need a connection, but you may need to figure out how to break it up or diffuse it. That was too long of an answer. But anyway, you get the idea. >> I just want to echo one point, and that is that the complicated and expensive calculations. We agree with your comment on that. The vast majority, we're hoping that the vast majority of cases won't require that, because they'll either demonstrate to us that their sites flow naturally to the street or to a storm drain, or, more likely, they'll need to do some level of grading. And [2:13:41 PM] do some level of grading. And that is going to be, you know, vastly simpler process than the calculation methods that historically have been required with onsite detention, where on those cases we're on site detention is triggered. We have the rational modified rational method that is going to be simpler. And I think as Matt mentioned as well, we're also looking at options. And watershed department is lead on this for modular detention, which is also something that would be simpler than in-ground on site detention in terms of construction costs, as well as the calculations that go into it. >> Again, we'll really appreciate any sense of again, I know the varying projects of varying sizes, but I mean, of the cost savings that, that, that this would produce for housing. >> Well, we did, and brant mentioned it briefly in his his talk. We, we did. You know, we don't have a lot of case studies [2:14:43 PM] don't have a lot of case studies on this. We did have we had one we used over and over again very, very but but it seemed to be very representative. And we actually had we had it corroborated a couple times by our stakeholders in this one particular project, upward of 40% of their project cost to kind of get it designed and developed and, you know, you know, not the cost to build it, but the cost to kind of make it happen. It was about 40% was in the was in that drainage component. And so if you took that away and if you were one of those that didn't need that at all, then you would you would, you'd be able to save a lot of money with that. And, and the storm drain connection is, you know, wasn't even contained, wasn't even contained in that one. That's sort of a go no go thing for you. If you build more than just like right there, you're you're may not be able to build your project. That's that's not a good situation for us as a community. We've said we want these. We want to make them happen. And so anyway, that's that's going to involve our, our department watershed protection, [2:15:44 PM] department watershed protection, you know, stepping up and doing additional work with our, our drainage system and not relying on the, the applicant to, to put in long runs of pipe. >> And last question, I know that there is also and again the jargon escapes me right now. But basically, you know, when you're putting in a new development, sometimes you're required to upgrade, let's say the water pipe or the drainage pipe, and it's not necessarily your development per se, but you know, you're required to upgrade it to a capacity that can handle also future development. But that one person kind of bears the cost of all the, you know, you just kind of got got hot potato, kind of you're left holding the hot potato there and you got to put all is that part of the site plan light process are those. And again I'm the name of that process is escaping me right now. But is that part of the site plan review. >> Yeah, absolutely. And so the second motion that will council motion that will be addressing will be looking at that. One of the departments that was asked to come forward and talk about [2:16:44 PM] to come forward and talk about that was Austin water. And for the water and wastewater connections. Transportation. Public works was is in that in that group and also Austin energy. And we'll actually have additional drainage thoughts that we will share with you then. But we won't bore you with right now. >> A great I appreciate that, because I know a number of projects have died where, you know, they're looking at it and then they talk to, let's say, Austin water, Austin energy. And they're like, well, we need $1 million transformer there before you can proceed. And they're like, well, so much for that, you know? And so and again, like I said, that transformer would handle multiple other properties, long term service. It's a long term big picture upgrade. But again if you can sneak through without a big requirement, great. But sometimes you know, you you you draw the short straw and you got to, you know, pay a bunch of money. So I wish I had more kind of I know that's a very rough description of, of the process, but looking forward to, to, you know, grappling with that issue [2:17:46 PM] know, grappling with that issue down the road. >> Yeah. And we take this super seriously. The city city staff wants that infrastructure to work and work well. And we do. You know, if it is somebody coming in and there's a straw that breaks the camel's back kind of thing that has to be addressed in some way. And so how to how to, how to handle that is, is an important question. >> So. Well I just council member Siegel. >> Thank you. And I just want to join with the chair and council member vela and thanking you all for all this great work. And I also really support this infill reform. Flooding is a little bit on my mind. As you all know, we had a big flood event. District seven got hit pretty hard. And so I want to ask a couple questions about lot to lot flooding. You know, director morales and the team at watershed have really kind of educated me. Okay. There's reek flooding. There's localized flooding. There's lots of lot. Let's not get these things mixed up. But you won't be surprised that I'm getting a fair number of concerns from my constituents about what is, I guess, lot to lot flooding. But I guess the first one is essentially if [2:18:46 PM] first one is essentially if there's a project that's built and this is pre this reform being implemented where, you know, they build a swale at a small apartment complex or they build some sort of drainage infrastructure that fails to function. I mean, I hear stories from constituents who say, oh, the apartment complex pushes more water onto my property. As a result of this new build, what mechanisms do we have as a city to kind of help constituents? You know, with that kind of thing? I know essentially it's a private property dispute or something along those lines. But, you know, what role does watershed have, or are other departments and kind of helping constituents understand what's happening with with the flow of water. >> Do you want to talk about the enforcement? >> I think you can handle. >> That one better. >> Than me. Okay. Well it does it does depend on what what the project is. And, you know, the type. So you could have you could have a site plan that builds a site plan like project. And so they show, here's my [2:19:46 PM] And so they show, here's my swale. I'm getting the water here. And, and there could be a legal process by which you would demonstrate that you have a failure to comply with site plan. Somebody didn't build that correctly. The you know, for whatever reason, it didn't build properly or didn't get maintained properly. And so there can be legal repercussions for not maintaining that in place and doing a good job with it. The there's less going on with a building permit, which is like just a house. It's a much simplified thing so that we're going to rely a lot more on just landowner to landowner lawsuits or something like that, and that the city doesn't have a role in that. And so that would be the so there's different paths depending on the original type of project, I would believe. And I'm is anybody else. Yeah. Let me let me get Liz. Liz Johnson is going to also help it. >> By requiring projects to flow to the street. We're doing everything we can to build into our process, protections that will ensure that landowners are [2:20:46 PM] will ensure that landowners are not getting sideways with each other under those state law provisions that you are alluding to. In looking at how other cities have grappled with this issue, there's no silver bullet. There's no easy solution. We've, you know, considered in this, I think, came up during the legislative process. We considered the affidavit and that's created a that's created challenges and been of, I think, somewhat limited utility for those cities that have have tried that. There's also been, you know, some exploration in connection with the code rewrite process and other at other times as well, exploring the idea of a direct enforcement provision through an amendment to the plumbing code. And that is also really challenging. So we feel like what we're proposing is something that will ensure that at the inspection stage and the review stage, we're going to be doing everything we can to ensure that projects are not going to be flooding their neighbors. [2:21:46 PM] neighbors. >> Liz Johnston, environmental officer for the question that you had related to, you know, maybe an existing project that was built before this. So, you know, watershed protection does have a fairly robust pond inspection program. So they go out and look at all of the privately maintained ponds. And if a pond is found to not be functioning or maintained properly, then, you know, they they are a resource that can be utilized to help bring the owner to compliance. So if a community member has concerns, they can reach out to us and we can put them in touch with an inspector. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. And that kind of gets at my second question, which is basically my last one is like, yeah, can we offer do we have resources we can offer, you know, for the five or so constituents to reach out to my office to complain about, you know, oh, we got flooded more than we should have because of my neighbor's property. Do we have any problem solving resources like, you know, my constituent services lead? You know, is there anything I can equip the constituents with when they [2:22:48 PM] constituents with when they call? Hey, water is being pushed into my property. It's causing harm, causing damage. Like, what kind of, you know, services can we offer? >> So I would say that they could call 311 and they will get a service ticket assigned to watershed protection, and somebody will investigate to see what is the cause of the, of the flooding. You know, if it if it is a problem due to maintenance of a pond, then that is something that, you know, we can we can help out with. >> But otherwise if it's not a pond, yeah. It's like hire a lawyer basically is the answer. >> I mean, at that point it does get more difficult for us to insert ourselves if it is not something that, you know, we had played a role in approving. >> Fair enough. Thank you very much. >> And just to close, I guess here the conversation is just so much better today. I just want to thank y'all because we it's just so much better today than it was when I came on to council. And I know these were very difficult and thorny issues. And I appreciate Mr. Lloyd, your comment. There's no [2:23:48 PM] Lloyd, your comment. There's no silver bullet and I agree, when we were looking at how other cities were doing this, everybody has kind of a different approach to it. But they all the problems are still pretty similar. So we're we're I think doing the best we can. And I just I can't say enough. I really appreciate y'all's work on this. I know there's a lot of complications and stuff. And let me turn to the chair harper-madison to I know I see her hand up. >> Thank you. And this might even be an item for future consideration if it seems like it's going to take longer than it needs to, but something that I've often found myself wondering about when we have these issues around sequestration and detention, you know, especially when we find ourselves in drought conditions, we can actually use that water. And so I've often found myself wondering, could we, you know, for all intents and purposes, bottle it and use it elsewhere? And then I start thinking about some of our curious conversations that we're having around floodplain agriculture. And I just wonder if there's a way for us to take what could potentially be, you know, like [2:24:49 PM] potentially be, you know, like the point you made earlier. Sometimes you just got to do the expensive thing. But what if that expensive thing could somehow generate some revenue or, you know, offset costs in the way that, you know, we use that water, which is a resource for all intents and purposes. So just something to think about. If we could have as a conversation later on, you know, as we're maximizing the use of our resources, I wonder if it would be a great idea. Or of course, I think it's a great idea, a good idea to explore if there's a way for us to repurpose that water. >> That's great. We are very interested in what is commonly called a one water approach nowadays because, you know, there's lots of different ways to integrate different ways we use water. This is a pretty complicated scenario because in the flood world, we want to manage water and we want to drain down whatever detention pond or whatever pretty quickly so that it's ready the next day. Like, look at this wave of rain we're getting. These last few days, we haven't had a ton of flooding, but, you know, sometimes it's more severe. So [2:25:49 PM] sometimes it's more severe. So you don't want to hang on to that water for weeks or months to, you know, use it later when you need it. In a detention scenario. Meanwhile, there's a separate set of controls. We use water quality ponds where maybe that's more effective and you can hold on a little longer. Or our friends at Austin water are working very hard on on site reuse, and so they've got a lot of good techniques in that. So managing water, using soil effectively to absorb and infiltrate and retain the water for your trees, for your for cooling and all the other stuff that that does is a really big deal. So we're really trying to look at that holistically and look at it together. But it is pretty. It is a little thorny because some of the things you sometimes you want to hold on to the water, sometimes you want to move it along. And we have very severe flash flood alley conditions of course. So but anyway, we love we love the we love the, the concepts that are fantastic. >> I'd love for us to revisit vice chair, I guess, you know, you're chairing the meeting, you [2:26:50 PM] you're chairing the meeting, you know on those future items for consideration. I'd love to expand on that one water conversation and just see what kind of options are on the table. >> Yeah, look forward to it. Look forward to I think that's a great idea with no further questions. Then we thank you all again very much for an excellent presentation. And the last item would be just a future items for a meeting. And I think the chair just identified one. And we can probably just touch base with staff to, to get those on on a future calendar. Council member Siegel anything from you. >> That's it for day today. >> Thank you. All right. Well, with nothing further on the agenda, I would just note that there are a number of memos and information in the backup, which again, I really appreciate staff doing that and putting all of the different memos together in each packet. So the general public and hard working council staff can check that out and follow along. But with nothing further, I will adjourn this meeting of the housing and planning committee at 227. Thank you all very much.